Hi Frank, all.
On 11-Jun-08, at 9:16 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>> I therefore suggest implementing:
>> * a user-agent parameter for the check script
>> * values can be:
>> - auto (equivalent to none) -> the usual validator UA applies
>> - forward (and maybe "referer" too?) -> will forward the UA string
>> as received by the validator. Modulo some sanitizing?
>> - mobileok -> will output the UA as defined in http://www.w3.org/TR/mobileOK-basic10-tests/#http_request
>> - any other string -> sanitize? and use as UA HTTP header.
>
> Sounds good, I hope "forward" covers "no UA" and "no referer".
> Maybe you need to map an empty "other string" to "no UA".
There are a couple of interesting thoughts here. First, I admit I
hadn't thought much about "no UA". To me it is usually not a good idea
to not have a UA header at all - that's the prerogative of broken bots
- should we really have that?
This makes me think maybe when a UA is requested we should use that
custom of adding a (Compatible; W3C Markup Validator <version)) ?
Not sure I understood what you meant be â€œno refererâ€